Maybe it’s just me, but this New York Times story strikes me as slightly perverse. It’s about how Maine destroys the guns used in homicides and lets the victims’ families watch. Now, I have no problem with the policy if it gives families the slightest bit of satisfaction or consolation. And I agree that for symbolic reasons alone there’s good reason to destroy murder weapons. But there is an odd tone of celebration in the story. The guns — about twenty a year — are taken off the streets (or dirt roads) as if selling them to law abiding customers would have led to more murders. More importantly, there’s this implication it was the gun’s fault. I know this is really neither new nor surprising. But it’s still annoying.